W. Va. Withdraws Recognition for Ohio

[Torence]

The Grand Master of West Virginia, Gregory A. Riley, Sr., issued an
edict on April 19, 2010 withdrawing fraternal recognition from the
Grand Lodge of Ohio because Steubenville Lodge No. 45 elected Frank
Haas to membership and conferred the three degrees of Masonry on him
on Saturday, April 17, 2010.

The Grand Master of Ohio, Terry W. Posey, has explained his position
regarding this matter as follows:

“Frank Haas is a Judge in West Virginia and until several years ago
was Grand Master of West Virginia. The story of his being expelled
from the Grand Lodge of West Virginia is well-documented in various
Masonic and other publications. I have reviewed as many as were
available, including West Virginia's Proceedings, the New York Times
and http://www.masonic-crusade.com.

He moved to Ohio last year. After that, he petitioned Steubenville
Lodge # 45 for the degrees of Freemasonry.

I thoroughly researched the Code of the Grand Lodge of Ohio and there
is nothing to prevent his receiving these degrees. Inasmuch as he is
an Ohio resident, the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Ohio confers
jurisdiction over his membership to the Grand Lodge of Ohio and the
lodge's membership.

He made a full disclosure of the Notice of Expulsion by the Past Grand
Master of West Virginia and answered all questions presented to him by
the Lodge's Committee of Investigation. The Lodge did the necessary
background work, including a home visit. They were assured that he was
a good man and true, and he met all requirements, including residency
for the requisite time, for membership.

Steubenville Lodge # 45 gave a unanimous ballot approving his
membership.

On April 17, he received the three degrees of Freemasonry in
Steubenville Lodge.”


Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary - Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois
PM - Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lansing, Illinois

[Rob Sandilands]

Torence wrote:
> The Grand Master of West Virginia, Gregory A. Riley, Sr., issued an
> edict on April 19, 2010 withdrawing fraternal recognition from the
> Grand Lodge of Ohio because Steubenville Lodge No. 45 elected Frank
> Haas to membership and conferred the three degrees of Masonry on him
> on Saturday, April 17, 2010.
>
> The Grand Master of Ohio, Terry W. Posey, has explained his position
> regarding this matter as follows:
>
> “Frank Haas is a Judge in West Virginia and until several years ago
> was Grand Master of West Virginia. The story of his being expelled
> from the Grand Lodge of West Virginia is well-documented in various
> Masonic and other publications. I have reviewed as many as were
> available, including West Virginia's Proceedings, the New York Times
> and http://www.masonic-crusade.com.
>
> He moved to Ohio last year. After that, he petitioned Steubenville
> Lodge # 45 for the degrees of Freemasonry.
>
> I thoroughly researched the Code of the Grand Lodge of Ohio and there
> is nothing to prevent his receiving these degrees. Inasmuch as he is
> an Ohio resident, the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Ohio confers
> jurisdiction over his membership to the Grand Lodge of Ohio and the
> lodge's membership.
>
> He made a full disclosure of the Notice of Expulsion by the Past Grand
> Master of West Virginia and answered all questions presented to him by
> the Lodge's Committee of Investigation. The Lodge did the necessary
> background work, including a home visit. They were assured that he was
> a good man and true, and he met all requirements, including residency
> for the requisite time, for membership.
>
> Steubenville Lodge # 45 gave a unanimous ballot approving his
> membership.
>
> On April 17, he received the three degrees of Freemasonry in
> Steubenville Lodge.”
>
>
> Fraternally,
> Torence Evans Ake
> Secretary - Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois
> PM - Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lansing, Illinois
>
... without reading the documentations and judgements, it's a little
hard to understand just what is going on here ... but I am amazed that
he had to repeat his EA, FC and MM degree ... and presume that the same
will apply should he be installed as Master of the Lodge ... in our
little part of the world, that would not be necessary ...

... the matters in question here are just what were the terms of his
expulsion from the Craft in West Virginia ... including the length of
time, if any, before he could reapply for membership ... and what the
Constitutions of Ohio have to say about receiving into membership a
brother who had been expelled from another Grand Lodge jurisdiction ...

... more info is needed to make any real sense of this one ...

[Rob Sandilands]

Rob Sandilands wrote:

>
> ... more info is needed to make any real sense of this one ...

... just did a quick bit of research ... the writ of expulsion is set
out below ... interestingly enough, the writ only refers to the
Jurisdiction of the issuing Grand Lodge and its members ... so unless
there are clauses in the various forms of recognition between Grand
Lodges effecting an expelled brother joining a lodge in another
Jurisdiction, what happened seemed in order ...

... mind you, the whole thing sounds very 'Vatican' to me ...

EDICT
Expelling Frank J. Haas of Wellsburg Lodge No. 2
To: The Worshipful Masters, Wardens and Brethren of the subordinate
lodges of
the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge A. F. & A. M. of the State of West Virginia
Brethren:
There is a coalition of brethren and members of concordant bodies within the
Grand Jurisdiction of West Virginia that has come to be known as the
Masonic Crusade.
The activities of this coalition consist mainly of campaigning,
recruiting, advertisement
of false information and unauthorized circulation. Furthermore, these
activities have
disrupted the peace and harmony of the craft and to demonstrate intent
to control this
Grand Lodge and do violate and circumvent our laws, rules, regulations
and the
obligations to which all West Virginia Masons are bound.
Whereas, our Masonic Law speaks to these offenses in Articles II and XI
of our
Code of Trials (CT.II, Sec. 1., CT.II.1.17., CT.II.1.20., CT.II.1.24.and
CT.XI., Sec. 2.),
Regulations 24.F.15., 31 (31.9), 39 (A.10.) and our Landmark number five:
Know ye that by virtue of the authority vested in me in Article III of the
Constitution of the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of A. F. & A. M. of the
State of West
Virginia, Inc., our Landmark number four and elsewhere as provided under
our laws, I
Charlie Law Montgomery, hereby order and reaffirm that participation in
the affairs of
the Masonic Crusade, including participation in its illegal website
activities, or any
related endeavor, constitutes un-Masonic conduct and will be treated as
such.
Whereas, Frank J. Haas has participated in the affairs of the Masonic
Crusade,
and has incited, endorsed, aided, abetted and perpetuated the same, and
whereas
Frank J. Haas did on December 2, 2006, October 26, 2007 and on other
occasions, speak to delegations of concordant bodies where the profane
were also
present, and did on such occasions propose and advocate support for
amendments and
repeal of our laws, such activity being strictly prohibited under
CT.II.1.20. of our Code of
Trials, and whereas
Frank J. Haas did on August 30, 2007 circulate email promoting and
encouraging the affairs of the Masonic Crusade, and whereas
Frank J. Haas did during the week of October 1 through 6, 2007 promote,
contact and encourage other brethren to participate and subscribe to the
illegal website of
the Masonic Crusade, and whereas
Frank J. Haas, during the One Hundred and Forty Third Annual Communication
of the Grand Lodge of West Virginia, and on numerous occasions during
the year
preceding such Annual Communication, did endeavor to gain voting support for
amendments and repeal of our laws as well as voting support to subvert
the principles of
the order and the actions of the Grand Lodge and Grand Master, and whereas
Frank J. Haas, on November 5, 2007 and on other occasions, has been publicly
insubordinate and disrespectful toward the Grand Lodge, its Grand Master
and other
Grand Lodge Officers, and has demonstrated conduct unbecoming a Mason in
this Grand
Jurisdiction, and whereas
I, Charlie Law Montgomery, have received and investigated reports and
complaints in these matters, and whereas
The officers and members of Wellsburg Lodge No. 2 have failed their duty to
take any action in these matters;
I, Charlie Law Montgomery, consistent with my responsibility and
authority as
described in CT.XI, Sec.2, further order that Frank J. Haas is expelled
from Masonry in
this Grand Jurisdiction, and that no mason under the authority of this
Grand Lodge shall,
from this moment forward, have converse or contact with him on any
matter Masonic.
I further order that the Charter of Wellsburg Lodge No. 2 is placed on
probation. Further infractions consistent with those named above will
result in forfeiture
of said Charter. Such probation shall remain in effect for an indefinite
period of time.
I further order that his edict be read in each subordinate lodge at the
next two
stated communications following its receipt, and that it be made a part
of the minutes.
I further order that failure to receive or be present for the reading of
this edict
shall not constitute exemption therefrom.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Grand Master on this nineteenth
day of
November A.D. 2007, A.L. 6007 in the One Hundred and Forty Third year of
The Most
Worshipful Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of the State
of West
Virginia.
/s/ Charlie L Montgomery
M.W. Charlie Law Montgomery
Grand Master of Masons
Form 05

[Doug Freyburger]

Torence wrote:
>
> The Grand Master of West Virginia, Gregory A. Riley, Sr., issued an
> edict on April 19, 2010 withdrawing fraternal recognition from the
> Grand Lodge of Ohio because Steubenville Lodge No. 45 elected Frank
> Haas to membership and conferred the three degrees of Masonry on him
> on Saturday, April 17, 2010.

The "Test Oath" that I learned includes a statement that I am not to my
knowledge under the sentence of suspension or explusion. Clearly MW Bro
Haas could not have sworn a test oath. I get that this is a breach of
soverinty so I understand the motivation to pull recognition.

1) The technical issues revolve around breach of soverinty by Ohio and
failing to follow due process by West Virginia. Two rights don't make a
wrong. Not that an Arkansas lodge had its charter pulled this year also
without due process.

Is it time to start pulling recognition when a GM fails to follow due
process in expelling a brother by Edict? If we do that a very large
number of jurisdictions exit from the network so I think some other
approach would be needed.

2) The motivational issues revolve around Prince Hall recognition. The
match that started this fire is two members of a grand line following in
succession where one strongly favored recognition and the next strongly
opposed recognition. As time passes resistance to recognition wanes -
The older men with obsolete attitudes age out, stop attending annual
communication and die. The issue becomes one of techincalities that are
handled as a matter of routine.

Is it time to start pulling recognition of GLs that refuse to recognize
Prince Hall GLs? When recognition started happening in the US at least
one GL pulled the recognition of recognizing jurisdictions. On the one
hand what's good for the goose is good for the gander and there is
precedent. On the other hand two wrongs don't make a right.

What other options are there to get grand line officers to behave with
honor and follow due process? These situations are disagraceful. The
bully pulpit of SOF is a weak voice to push for changes on this front.

[Torence]

On May 4, 12:10 pm, Doug Freyburger <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The "Test Oath" that I learned includes a statement that I am not to my
> knowledge under the sentence of suspension or explusion. Clearly MW Bro
> Haas could not have sworn a test oath.
On the contrary, all the proper Masonic protocols were followed.
Here is a clear example of how the de facto condition at the Local
Lodge supercedes Codification and Grand Officer decision.
While we may ask an unvouched visitor if he is under such a
sentence, and he answers in the affirmative, for all practical
purposes whether or not he is admitted is often determined by the
presiding officer. The same circumstance occurs in the normal
operation of a lodge. If a Brother holds dual membership between
jurisdictions, is in good standing in one but not another say for non-
payment of dues, most Lodge Masters that I know will still admit them.
This activity violates the sixth furthermore in the third degree.
Of course only recently in Illinois, (2005 I believe) Grand Line
Officers have enforced the policy that if a Brother is suspended in
one jurisdiction for NPD, he is automatically suspended in any
Illinois Lodge with which he hold his membership. I presume the same
rule would apply to sojourners; but, I understand that not all
jurisdictions ascribe to this policy. By those standards any Lodge
Master admitting such a Brother risks censure; but someone would have
to run and tell on him first.
I can state with certainty that attending lodge while under the
sentence of suspension presents no great obstacle to be hurdled.
Hypothetically speaking, I suppose that if M.W. Bro. Haas or his
companions were to knock on the door of my lodge, I would not be the
first to object to their admission; but as the Secretary, I would have
to mention to the Master that pesky sixth furthermore.
> Is it time to start pulling recognition when a GM fails to follow due
> process in expelling a brother by Edict?
Hypothetically speaking, if one jurisdiction (Ohio) is no longer
recognized by another (say, W. Va.) can they then move to annex the
lodges that have no recognized Grand Lodge and exist now from their
viewpoint in a Masonic wilderness?
> 2) The motivational issues revolve around Prince Hall recognition.
I remember bringing this subject up with the man himself. (I time
travel). “Prince,” I said, “Prince what do you think of these Grand
Lodges that will not recognize you?” “My Brother,” he said, “I do not
think that I would want to be recognized by any organization that
would have me as a member.”
> Is it time to start pulling recognition of GLs that refuse to recognize
> Prince Hall GLs?
Then move to annex their lodges, or support a new Grand Lodge as a
start-up within their borders that holds a more modern perspective of
justice?
> What other options are there to get grand line officers to behave with
> honor and follow due process?
As long as we bundle our executive, legislative and judiciary
functions into a man from among us, these abuses may wane a bit with
better talent, but are guaranteed to explode when a tyrant takes the
Grand East. The notion is un-American, and a Bill of Rights that
includes Habeas Corpus, respect for free speech, freedom of religion
etc. within our tyled walls will go a long way to correct past and
prevent future occurrences.

Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary – Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 – Crete, Illinois
PM – Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 – Lansing, Illinois

[Doug Freyburger]

Torence wrote:
> Doug Freyburger <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The "Test Oath" that I learned includes a statement that I am not to my
>> knowledge under the sentence of suspension or explusion. Clearly MW Bro
>> Haas could not have sworn a test oath.
>
> On the contrary, all the proper Masonic protocols were followed.

He applied for the degrees rather than asking to be admitted as a
visitor. The statement says he was open about his status and was voted
in unanimously.

> Here is a clear example of how the de facto condition at the Local
> Lodge supercedes Codification and Grand Officer decision.

And also an example of how such actions impact other lodges. Not that I
object to the actions of the Ohio lodge who put him through their
degrees as a regular candidate (cleansing is the word for that?).

> This activity violates the sixth furthermore in the third degree.

The exact wording is different jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Maybe
Ohio's wording is more generous than Illinois's. California's wording
is.

> Of course only recently in Illinois, (2005 I believe) Grand Line
> Officers have enforced the policy that if a Brother is suspended in
> one jurisdiction for NPD, he is automatically suspended in any
> Illinois Lodge with which he hold his membership.

I'm not convinced that techincally applies. He was not suspended NPD.
He was expelled for cause. I happen to disagree with but still
expelled.

> I can state with certainty that attending lodge while under the
> sentence of suspension presents no great obstacle to be hurdled.

Especially for NPD I would want a brother who has relocated to visit a
few local lodges before doing the paperwork to handle going current on
his dues to affiliate with a new lodge. A matter of letter of the law
versus spirit of the law.

>> Is it time to start pulling recognition when a GM fails to follow due
>> process in expelling a brother by Edict?
>
> Hypothetically speaking, if one jurisdiction (Ohio) is no longer
> recognized by another (say, W. Va.) can they then move to annex the
> lodges that have no recognized Grand Lodge and exist now from their
> viewpoint in a Masonic wilderness?

My spirit of the law opinion - Two wrongs don't make a right.

My letter of the law opinion - A GL has to declare the other one not
regular in addition to not recognized before any sort of invasion like
that would happen so no.

>> Is it time to start pulling recognition of GLs that refuse to recognize
>> Prince Hall GLs?
>
> Then move to annex their lodges, or support a new Grand Lodge as a
> start-up within their borders that holds a more modern perspective of
> justice?

Revolutions among GLs? I wish for a milder way of influencing the
actions of neighboring jurisdictions than pulling recognition not more
extreme ways. The word partisan hasppens in both politics and in
military and I don't want that sort of parallel.

>> What other options are there to get grand line officers to behave with
>> honor and follow due process?
>
> As long as we bundle our executive, legislative and judiciary
> functions into a man from among us, these abuses may wane a bit with
> better talent, but are guaranteed to explode when a tyrant takes the
> Grand East.

I intended my question to be about external influences. Your answer was
about internal influences. I'm more comfortable with the broad powers
of a GM than you are, but I'm also more used to watching GM decisions
get voted down at an annual communication.

> The notion is un-American, and a Bill of Rights that
> includes Habeas Corpus, respect for free speech, freedom of religion
> etc. within our tyled walls will go a long way to correct past and
> prevent future occurrences.

As these events unfold among American jurisdiction I wonder at the idea
that such a bill of rights would limit the ability of rogue GMs to make
such problems but then farther into the future what happens relative to
more distant jurisdictions. Masonry has long been a beacon for freedom
in nations emerging from tyranny into elected republics.

As Masonry started in England and those are well established traditions
in English jurisprudence I hesitate to phrase my response as purely
American - Is it within the points of the extended compas to evangelize
Anglo-American principles into the Masonry of other lands? As opposed
to more generally fostering elections ...

[Stuart H.]

On 2010-05-05 2:40 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Torence wrote:
>> Doug Freyburger<***@yahoo.com> wrote:
SNIP
>
> As these events unfold among American jurisdiction I wonder at the idea
> that such a bill of rights would limit the ability of rogue GMs to make
> such problems but then farther into the future what happens relative to
> more distant jurisdictions. Masonry has long been a beacon for freedom
> in nations emerging from tyranny into elected republics.
>
> As Masonry started in England and those are well established traditions
> in English jurisprudence I hesitate to phrase my response as purely
> American - Is it within the points of the extended compas to evangelize
> Anglo-American principles into the Masonry of other lands? As opposed
> to more generally fostering elections ...
>

Although the American (and British) ideals of Rights, Freedoms and
Democracy are to be lauded, has Freemasonry ever claimed to be a
Democratic institution?
Yes, we have "elections", both at Lodge and GL levels, but who gets to
vote? In many American jurisdictions, only MMs are considered full
members and vote in Lodge elections. In other jurisdictions, such as
the one to which I belong, a Candidate becomes a full Brother in the
Lodge when Initiated, thus EAs and FCs vote and ballot in our Lodge.
In many jurisdiction, only the three Senior Officers of a Lodge and PMs
have a vote at GL Communications, whereas all MMs also may vote at GL in
our jurisdiction. Which of these is more democratic?
Would it be right for me to "evangelize" our "democratic principles" in
another jurisdiction such as Illinois? Personally I think not.
Who actually stated that Freemasonry is a democratic institution? Yes
we are all supposed to be on the level, but is that true in practice?
Or is our Craft one of partial democracy and partial autocracy?

Stuart H.
PM & Treasurer - Baseline Lodge AF&AM
Spruce Grove, Alberta

[Rob Sandilands]

Stuart H. wrote:
>
> Or is our Craft one of partial democracy and partial autocracy?
>

... one of the best definitions I ever heard is that Freemasonry is
either a geriatric autocracy or an autocratic geriontocracy ...

[Torence]

On May 5, 7:41 pm, "Stuart H." <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Although the American (and British) ideals of Rights, Freedoms and
> Democracy are to be lauded, has Freemasonry ever claimed to be a
> Democratic institution?
Not me, neither would I argue that our club should become one. A
parallel to prove the point occurred in the history of our US
Government. In 1913, the Senate was altered to be elected by popular
vote against the better direction found in Madison’s drafts of the
constitution. The move nearly negated the influence of the State’s
Legislatures for an American’s daily life and particularly in regards
our ability to curb overt taxation. To be effective and representative
of their states, the proper authority for a Senate position should be
chosen directly from the State’s legislatures rather than the public.
Similarly in our club the best scenario from which to draw our
Masonic Congressional Representatives is the set-up true to the
Original Plan. The sitting Masters and Warden’s or proxies designated
by them, and no others being the exclusive decision makers in Masonic
Conclave particularly when a decision is to made regarding assets,
taxation or the life of lodges.
> Would it be right for me to "evangelize" our "democratic principles" in
> another jurisdiction such as Illinois?
We could use more good ideas and welcome opinion from any quarter.
To start off here are ten notions to begin such a Bill, Hold onto your
Masonic Hats, Boys.

No. 1. An Illinois Lodge is constituent of the Grand Lodge and not
subordinate with the duty to act as the proper authority in matters
appertaining to its specific membership.

No. 2 Habeas Corpus is required and any act of discipline or
intervention into Lodge Affairs by another affords the affected party
the Right to judicial review, a speedy trial by a jury of a Brother’s
genuine peers, or in the case of Constituent Lodges, a panel of Three
Principle Lodge Officers representing separate constituent Peer
Lodges.

No. 3. A Lodge’s Three Principle Officers, its Master and Wardens, are
the proper voice of the Lodge at the Grand Lodge Convention with the
requisite that they vote either in person or via their own designated
proxy chosen by them. They generally represent the Lodge throughout
the year. No emissary may supplant them.

No. 4 A Master Mason has the Right and the Duty to belong to some
Lodge.

No. 5 A Master Mason has the Right to speak freely among his Brothers
without fear of retribution respecting Masonic decorum while the Lodge
is in session. His duty is to bring grievance and have these
grievances heard by his Lodge; and if the matter appertains to the
Grand Lodge or Grand Master, the Lodge’s Three Principle Officers have
the duty to forward the concern to the Grand Master along with their
consensus opinion of it.

No. 6 A Master Mason has a reasonable right to privacy in his private
affairs.

No. 7 A Master Mason has the right to determine the reasonable length
of his cable tow.

No. 8 A Master Mason has the right to determine the nature and extent
of his Charity.

No. 9 The Lodges via their Principle Officers have the right to
impeach a Grand Line Officer and the duty to do so should he be shown
to be corrupt. The Local Lodges have the Right and the Duty to perform
fiscal review of the money assigned to the Grand Lodge.

No. 10 A Grand Master cannot screen from punishment those that He
instigates to commit a Masonic offense, neither can He work to prevent
discovery of their guilt.


Comment?

Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary – Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 – Crete, Illinois
PM – Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 – Lansing, Illinois

[R***@hotmail.com]

On Fri, 7 May 2010 13:49:57 CST, Torence <***@aol.com> wrote:

>On May 5, 7:41 pm, "Stuart H." <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Although the American (and British) ideals of Rights, Freedoms and
>> Democracy are to be lauded, has Freemasonry ever claimed to be a
>> Democratic institution?
> Not me, neither would I argue that our club should become one. A
>parallel to prove the point occurred in the history of our US
>Government. In 1913, the Senate was altered to be elected by popular
>vote against the better direction found in Madison’s drafts of the
>constitution. The move nearly negated the influence of the State’s
>Legislatures for an American’s daily life and particularly in regards
>our ability to curb overt taxation. To be effective and representative
>of their states, the proper authority for a Senate position should be
>chosen directly from the State’s legislatures rather than the public.
> Similarly in our club the best scenario from which to draw our
>Masonic Congressional Representatives is the set-up true to the
>Original Plan. The sitting Masters and Warden’s or proxies designated
>by them, and no others being the exclusive decision makers in Masonic
>Conclave particularly when a decision is to made regarding assets,
>taxation or the life of lodges.
>> Would it be right for me to "evangelize" our "democratic principles" in
>> another jurisdiction such as Illinois?
> We could use more good ideas and welcome opinion from any quarter.
>To start off here are ten notions to begin such a Bill, Hold onto your
>Masonic Hats, Boys.

I'm not in the USA, so some words may have different meanings for me,
but I do not see Freemasonry as a Club.

>No. 1. An Illinois Lodge is constituent of the Grand Lodge and not
>subordinate with the duty to act as the proper authority in matters
>appertaining to its specific membership.

I don't understand this.

>No. 2 Habeas Corpus is required and any act of discipline or
>intervention into Lodge Affairs by another affords the affected party
>the Right to judicial review, a speedy trial by a jury of a Brother’s
>genuine peers, or in the case of Constituent Lodges, a panel of Three
>Principle Lodge Officers representing separate constituent Peer
>Lodges.

I thought habeus corpus related to imprisonment. Is that common in USA
Masonic disputes?
I agreethat masonic justice should be timely, subject only to the need
to ensure that it is fair and that an accused has the right of
representation of his choice.

>No. 3. A Lodge’s Three Principle Officers, its Master and Wardens, are
>the proper voice of the Lodge at the Grand Lodge Convention with the
>requisite that they vote either in person or via their own designated
>proxy chosen by them. They generally represent the Lodge throughout
>the year. No emissary may supplant them.

This is a domestic issue. I don't see anything wrong with any
particualr franchise system or voting system provided it is adopted by
a Grand Lodge in accordance with its rules.

>No. 4 A Master Mason has the Right and the Duty to belong to some
>Lodge.

"Unattached" can be inevitable in times of financial hardship, or
re-location to another part ofthe world, but in general I agree.

>No. 5 A Master Mason has the Right to speak freely among his Brothers
>without fear of retribution respecting Masonic decorum while the Lodge
>is in session. His duty is to bring grievance and have these
>grievances heard by his Lodge; and if the matter appertains to the
>Grand Lodge or Grand Master, the Lodge’s Three Principle Officers have
>the duty to forward the concern to the Grand Master along with their
>consensus opinion of it.

The right to speak freely within a lodge must be subject to the
lodge's own by-laws, and it should be expected that behaviour be
'masonic' at all times. Who grievances are brought to is a domestic
issue - different offences may have different paths to follow,
different lodges and jurisdictions may have different procedures. The
important thing is that there is a procedure that is accepted as being
fair.

>No. 6 A Master Mason has a reasonable right to privacy in his private
>affairs.

Agree - is this a real issue very often?

>No. 7 A Master Mason has the right to determine the reasonable length
>of his cable tow.
Agree

>No. 8 A Master Mason has the right to determine the nature and extent
>of his Charity.

Agree

>No. 9 The Lodges via their Principle Officers have the right to
>impeach a Grand Line Officer and the duty to do so should he be shown
>to be corrupt. The Local Lodges have the Right and the Duty to perform
>fiscal review of the money assigned to the Grand Lodge.

Are these merely re-statements of some of the principles above?
General principles should be timeless, and not relate too strongly to
current or recent events.

>No. 10 A Grand Master cannot screen from punishment those that He
>instigates to commit a Masonic offense, neither can He work to prevent
>discovery of their guilt.
Insteead of "A Grand Master", should that be 'A brother', or "a
Freemason"? Again is this not part of the need for due process for
consideration of complaints and offences?


>Comment?
>
>Fraternally,
>Torence Evans Ake
>Secretary – Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 – Crete, Illinois
>PM – Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 – Lansing, Illinois
>

[Dave Vick, PM]

The thought occurs to me that, since none of the Brethren discussing
this matter are residents or property of the Grand Lodges of either Ohio
or W. Virginia, it's really none of our business, is it?

It's certainly none of mine...
--
Dave Vick, PM
Lansing #33, Michigan
(somewhere on tour in the USA)

[Torence]

On May 8, 2:23 am, "Dave Vick, PM" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> The thought occurs to me that, since none of the Brethren discussing
> this matter are residents or property of the Grand Lodges of either Ohio
> or W. Virginia, it's really none of our business, is it?
>
> It's certainly none of mine...
The whole notion of joining “this thing of ours” is to bring us men
who would otherwise remain at a perpetual distance, together. When I
had my little tiff a few years back, I received support from the
larger Masonic community and should you, my Brother, find your Masonic
livelihood threatened by some grumpy old man who would risk or
diminish it to perpetuate an archaic prejudice, then you should know
that we here are duty bound to give you what aid and comfort that we
can given our meager stations.
Most of us are responsible to some degree for Lodge Life in our
jurisdictions and to a lesser degree the whole Masonic Community at
Large. We could divest ourselves of that responsibility by sloughing
off everything but our commitments to do what degree work falls our
way or arranging meals and the affairs of our own lodges and nothing
else. We could leave it to Some Other Brother, a jewel bedecked
transient passing through the Grand East to decide things for us. But
that does not to me seem to be the American Way.
Lodges at the start of this twenty-first century are poor things
indeed. They have been stripped mined of their best talent. Their
brick and mortar assets degraded. Their money off loaded to support
Large Charities that no longer have a Cause. History has shown that it
is folly for the relatively rich to tell the poor how they should cure
their adversity. When they do they produce societies that are more
slothful and less industrious, more prone to dissatisfaction than
masterfully proud. It is up to us poor, poor Lodge dwellers to decide
for ourselves how to best improve our lot, and perpetuate the sort of
society that is a thing for our generation. We need some thing to
inspire us; and a Bill of Masonic Rights and Duties will undoubtedly
broaden the base of our Republic and is just the ticket to unite us.
That it may also correct some of the temporal disturbances such as
the West Virginia Case, or the Georgia Case, or the Virginia Case that
the civil courts have recently stepped in to correct us, is but one
benefit. That it may also prevent future trouble is another point all
together. The majority of our membership have never owned, never read
or even flipped through the pages of our Constitutions and By-Laws. If
they ever examined one, in my opinion, every one would go to work to
improve their Books.
But a Bill of Masonic Rights and Duties would overwrite the
dissatisfactory work of those who have gone before us. I can say that
it is needed because numerically speaking of the living 70,000
membership of Illinois I have made more corrections to our current
Book with the exception of but one who may be counted equally. And,
yet, I have never been a right worshipful or most worshipful anything.
But those facts do not point to a system for positive and correct
change that will work for the best interest of the Lodges. A clearer
course correction is needed and that need is urgent.
It is my business just as it is yours.

Fraternally and Respectfully,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary – Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 – Crete, Illinois
PM – Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 – Lansing, Illinois

[Chris H]

In message <7e134f80-5939-42fc-b70f-***@q32g2000yqb.googlegroup
s.com>, Torence <***@aol.com> writes
>transient passing through the Grand East to decide things for us. But
>that does not to me seem to be the American Way.

The "American Way" is irrelevant. Freemasonry transcends national
boundaries.

The problem with a Bill of Rights (which would only apply to a
particular Grand Lodge) is that it would tend to set things in Stone.
Not a good idea.

I would remind you that at one time slaves were considered acceptable
for a Gentleman. Obviously, as our Grand Lodge Certificates (you do have
GL Certs don't you?) were in Latin because all Gentlemen understood
Latin...

Also unless done in concert with other GL' such as UGLE and the Prince
Hall Masons it will have no real impact other than making 1 GL different
(and set in stone different) to the rest of the World....

Nice idea, I can see what you are trying to do, but I don't think it
will work.



--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Doug Freyburger]

Chris H wrote:
>
> The problem with a Bill of Rights (which would only apply to a
> particular Grand Lodge) is that it would tend to set things in Stone.
> Not a good idea.

Written material is more stable than spoken material but it's not a list
of landmarks. That's why I remain ambiguous about the suggestion,
though.

> Obviously, as our Grand Lodge Certificates (you do have
> GL Certs don't you?) were in Latin because all Gentlemen understood
> Latin...

In the US a Grand Lodge Certificate is called a "Dues Card". Just like
your GLC it is a document printed by GL according to GL rules.

[Dave Vick, PM]

In article
<7e134f80-5939-42fc-b70f-***@q32g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Torence <***@aol.com> wrote:

> It is my business just as it is yours.

With respect, it is only insofar as a topic of general curiosity.
Beyond that, I disagree.

Perhaps you need another hobby, Brother...
--
Dave Vick, PM
Lansing #33, Michigan
(somewhere on tour in the USA)

[Chris H]

In message <***@4ax.com>,
***@hotmail.com writes
>> We could use more good ideas and welcome opinion from any quarter.
>>To start off here are ten notions to begin such a Bill, Hold onto your
>>Masonic Hats, Boys.
>
>I'm not in the USA, so some words may have different meanings for me,
>but I do not see Freemasonry as a Club.

I agree... it never has been "a club" in the normal meaning of a club,
Gentleman's or otherwise.

>>No. 6 A Master Mason has a reasonable right to privacy in his private
>>affairs.
>Agree - is this a real issue very often?

It depends.... In some parts of the world an "immoral occupation" is
managing a liquor store. Whereas in civilised (:-) parts of the world
alcohol is served at the festive board ....


On the other hand in some parts of the world running a brothel is a
legitimate (and not immoral) business occupation.




--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[David Simpson]

[Default] On Sun, 9 May 2010 09:25:29 CST, Chris H
<***@phaedsys.org> typed:

>In message <***@4ax.com>,
>***@hotmail.com writes
>>> We could use more good ideas and welcome opinion from any quarter.
>>>To start off here are ten notions to begin such a Bill, Hold onto your
>>>Masonic Hats, Boys.
>>
>>I'm not in the USA, so some words may have different meanings for me,
>>but I do not see Freemasonry as a Club.
>
>I agree... it never has been "a club" in the normal meaning of a club,
>Gentleman's or otherwise.
>
>>>No. 6 A Master Mason has a reasonable right to privacy in his private
>>>affairs.
>>Agree - is this a real issue very often?
>
>It depends.... In some parts of the world an "immoral occupation" is
>managing a liquor store. Whereas in civilised (:-) parts of the world
>alcohol is served at the festive board ....
>
>
>On the other hand in some parts of the world running a brothel is a
>legitimate (and not immoral) business occupation.

And so it should be. Brothels are legal in many Australian states so
the occupation would be a quite legitimate occupation.
--
Regards
David Simpson
(Unattached MM, Victoria, Australia)
There was a phone call for you.

[Chris H]

In message <***@4ax.com>, David Simpson
<***@picknowl.com.au> writes
>[Default] On Sun, 9 May 2010 09:25:29 CST, Chris H
><***@phaedsys.org> typed:
>
>>In message <***@4ax.com>,
>>***@hotmail.com writes
>>>> We could use more good ideas and welcome opinion from any quarter.
>>>>To start off here are ten notions to begin such a Bill, Hold onto your
>>>>Masonic Hats, Boys.
>>>
>>>I'm not in the USA, so some words may have different meanings for me,
>>>but I do not see Freemasonry as a Club.
>>
>>I agree... it never has been "a club" in the normal meaning of a club,
>>Gentleman's or otherwise.
>>
>>>>No. 6 A Master Mason has a reasonable right to privacy in his private
>>>>affairs.
>>>Agree - is this a real issue very often?
>>
>>It depends.... In some parts of the world an "immoral occupation" is
>>managing a liquor store. Whereas in civilised (:-) parts of the world
>>alcohol is served at the festive board ....
>>
>>
>>On the other hand in some parts of the world running a brothel is a
>>legitimate (and not immoral) business occupation.
>
>And so it should be. Brothels are legal in many Australian states so
>the occupation would be a quite legitimate occupation.

I know.... so my point is how can we have a universal "Bill of Rights"
for a "just, upright and moral" character where in some areas working
in a liquor store is considered immoral and others where running a
Brothel is not.

I understand what is being suggested and the good intentions but it is
not something that will travel well.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Rob Sandilands]

Chris H wrote:
> In message <***@4ax.com>, David Simpson
> <***@picknowl.com.au> writes
>> [Default] On Sun, 9 May 2010 09:25:29 CST, Chris H
>> <***@phaedsys.org> typed:
>>
>>> In message <***@4ax.com>,
>>> ***@hotmail.com writes
>>>>> We could use more good ideas and welcome opinion from any quarter.
>>>>> To start off here are ten notions to begin such a Bill, Hold onto your
>>>>> Masonic Hats, Boys.
>>>> I'm not in the USA, so some words may have different meanings for me,
>>>> but I do not see Freemasonry as a Club.
>>> I agree... it never has been "a club" in the normal meaning of a club,
>>> Gentleman's or otherwise.
>>>
>>>>> No. 6 A Master Mason has a reasonable right to privacy in his private
>>>>> affairs.
>>>> Agree - is this a real issue very often?
>>> It depends.... In some parts of the world an "immoral occupation" is
>>> managing a liquor store. Whereas in civilised (:-) parts of the world
>>> alcohol is served at the festive board ....
>>>
>>>
>>> On the other hand in some parts of the world running a brothel is a
>>> legitimate (and not immoral) business occupation.
>> And so it should be. Brothels are legal in many Australian states so
>> the occupation would be a quite legitimate occupation.
>
> I know.... so my point is how can we have a universal "Bill of Rights"
> for a "just, upright and moral" character where in some areas working
> in a liquor store is considered immoral and others where running a
> Brothel is not.
>
> I understand what is being suggested and the good intentions but it is
> not something that will travel well.
>
... there may even be some grounds for suggesting that those employed as
politicians are living off immoral earnings ... :)

[Rob Sandilands]

Torence wrote:

>
> No. 1. An Illinois Lodge is constituent of the Grand Lodge and not
> subordinate with the duty to act as the proper authority in matters
> appertaining to its specific membership.
... this will all depend on your constitution ... usually, where one
body 'charters' other bodies, there is a heirarchical relationship ...
the idea of Grand Lodges setting out membership or other regulations is
to ensure consistency across the Jurisdiction ... the Lodge already does
act, I would suggest, as a proper authroity with regard to its own
membership under the regulations/constitution of the Grand Lodge ...
>
> No. 2 Habeas Corpus is required and any act of discipline or
> intervention into Lodge Affairs by another affords the affected party
> the Right to judicial review, a speedy trial by a jury of a Brother’s
> genuine peers, or in the case of Constituent Lodges, a panel of Three
> Principle Lodge Officers representing separate constituent Peer
> Lodges.
... as I understand it, habeus corpus applies to criminal law where the
state is required to produce 'the body' for trial ... the notion of
judicial review implies that there are no mechanisms of self-regulation
and determination in the Jurisdiction ... I know that in my
Jusrisdiction, there are provisions for dealing with Masonic offences
that are more than adequate, and I would be surprised if this wasn't the
case elsewhere ...
>
> No. 3. A Lodge’s Three Principle Officers, its Master and Wardens, are
> the proper voice of the Lodge at the Grand Lodge Convention with the
> requisite that they vote either in person or via their own designated
> proxy chosen by them. They generally represent the Lodge throughout
> the year. No emissary may supplant them.
... in our Jurisdiction, lodges located some distance from the state
capital can appoint, or ask to have appointed, a representative in Grand
Lodge, and quite freely communicate with that representative regarding
matters to be considered by Grand Lodge ... the existence of such a
representative does not in any way affect the rights of the Master,
Wardens and Past Masters of a subordinate lodge from attending Grand
Lodge and voting ...
>
> No. 4 A Master Mason has the Right and the Duty to belong to some
> Lodge.
... right ... yes ... duty ... well, hang on a minute ... we are taught
that duty to our family and civic commitments must take priority to our
Masonic ones ... the right is more than sufficient ... and from a
personal point of view, I joined the Craft of my own free will and
accord, and I will not be told that I MUST remain a member ... this
statement is particularly relevant to me at the moment as I have sadly
reached the point where I realise that finances, health, distance,
family, business and other committments are unlikely to permit me to
continue as a member of my mother lodge ... which is the only lodge I
want to be a member of ...
>
> No. 5 A Master Mason has the Right to speak freely among his Brothers
> without fear of retribution respecting Masonic decorum while the Lodge
> is in session. His duty is to bring grievance and have these
> grievances heard by his Lodge; and if the matter appertains to the
> Grand Lodge or Grand Master, the Lodge’s Three Principle Officers have
> the duty to forward the concern to the Grand Master along with their
> consensus opinion of it.
... this is a pretty wide ranging statement ... I would suggest that it
might better be expressed that a Mason ( including EAs and FCs ) have
the right to participate in the government of the lodge ... I suggest
also that individual Masons have the right, but not necessarily the
duty, to seek redress of grievances ... with regard to communication
with anyone outside the lodge, including Masonic authority, the correct
channel of communication is through the secretary ...
>
> No. 6 A Master Mason has a reasonable right to privacy in his private
> affairs.
... wrong ... a Master Mason has the same right to privacy as any
citizen ... if the lodge or Grand Lodge doesn't respect this, then there
is a very severe problem ... but if a member's behaviour or similar
becomes public knowledge and likely to bring the Craft into disrepute,
then that is a different matter ... BUT proper procedures and the
principles of natural justice must apply ...
>
> No. 7 A Master Mason has the right to determine the reasonable length
> of his cable tow.
... this makes no sense whatsoever when read against number 4 above ...
and from what I can see, is already the case ...
>
> No. 8 A Master Mason has the right to determine the nature and extent
> of his Charity.
... the teaching of the craft in this matter are set out in the EA
ritual, at least in my Jurisdiction, and there is no need for further
comment or regulation ...
>
> No. 9 The Lodges via their Principle Officers have the right to
> impeach a Grand Line Officer and the duty to do so should he be shown
> to be corrupt. The Local Lodges have the Right and the Duty to perform
> fiscal review of the money assigned to the Grand Lodge.
... the right to impeach ... or the right to move for impeachment ...
other than that, if provisions for this aren't already in your
Constitutions, then you have a big problem ... as for the review of
finances etc, your GL should publish a detailed and fully audited annual
financial statement ...
>
> No. 10 A Grand Master cannot screen from punishment those that He
> instigates to commit a Masonic offense, neither can He work to prevent
> discovery of their guilt.
... absolutely pointless ... again, if there aren't provisions for this
sort of thing in your Constitutions, there's a major problem ...
>
>
> Comment?
>
> Fraternally,
> Torence Evans Ake
> Secretary – Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 – Crete, Illinois
> PM – Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 – Lansing, Illinois
>
>

[Doug Freyburger]

Stuart H. wrote:
>
> Although the American (and British) ideals of Rights, Freedoms and
> Democracy are to be lauded, has Freemasonry ever claimed to be a
> Democratic institution?

Bro Stuart,

Thanks for explaining it clearly. Note that the word democracy is taken
in a specific sense of direct voting and in a general sense of systems
that include elections. Republics are not democracies in the specific
sense but they are democracies in the general sense. This ambiguity
leads to rhetorical free for alls.

> Yes, we have "elections", both at Lodge and GL levels, but who gets to
> vote?

Citizens. ;^) Which are defined per jurisdiction.

> In many American jurisdictions, only MMs are considered full
> members and vote in Lodge elections. In other jurisdictions, such as
> the one to which I belong, a Candidate becomes a full Brother in the
> Lodge when Initiated, thus EAs and FCs vote and ballot in our Lodge.

There's a movement afoot in the US to allow EAs and FCs into business
meetings where balloting takes place. Jurisdictions that switch back
from the American way to the worldwide standard have uniformly seen
better attendence afterwards. Expect that we'll now start discussing a
switch all the way to the worldwide standard.

There's even a ritual reason. The word "worthy" appears in the FC
obligation in both of the jurisdictions I have learned. Among the
several meanings of the word it means current on his dues. Thus our
obligatons in California and Illinois suggest that at least FCs should
pay dues independent of the many other reasons that it's a good idea to
follow well accepted worldwide standards.

> In many jurisdiction, only the three Senior Officers of a Lodge and PMs
> have a vote at GL Communications, whereas all MMs also may vote at GL in
> our jurisdiction. Which of these is more democratic?

That's how a republic works and I mentioned above that a republic fits
one of the two common meanings for democracy. Lodge members (citizens)
elect the main lodge officers (representatives or MPs). The main
officers then appoint other officers. The entire officer team runs the
day to day business of the lodge rather like local government works in
many republics. The main lodge officers (MPs) elect the main GL
officers (ministers) from among themselves rather like how parliments
work. Then the elected GL officers appoint the rest of the line and so
on.

A difference from parliment style the Bro Torrence has objected to in
the past is that GL officers tend to be PMs not WMs. Rather like
drawing ministers from the pool of former members of parliment not from
current members.

> Would it be right for me to "evangelize" our "democratic principles" in
> another jurisdiction such as Illinois? Personally I think not.

But it would be fair for me to work within my jurisdiction(s) to
implement the good parts of your principles, would it not? Not quite
the same thing, which is why I have been pondering the topic recently.

> Who actually stated that Freemasonry is a democratic institution? Yes
> we are all supposed to be on the level, but is that true in practice?

Local Craft Masonry regards no man on account of his worldy wealth or
honors. We do manage to pull that off mostly. Attending lodge can be a
man who can barely afford a used suit and a man who deliberately dresses
down from among his older and non-tailored suits. Men who can barely
pay their annual dues and men who paid their life membership annuity out
of pocket change. It's true in practice.

Grand Lodge Masonry can not afford to have poor men in the grand line.
he grand line needs to travel and volunteer extensively. They must
perforce be men of independent means. But among those with the means
can anyone remember a brother buying his way into grand line? I have
seen many come in through extensive charity volunteering and committee
work and i have seen many come in through extensive ritual work. It's
as true in practice among those with the means as can be when those
without the means can not be selected.

> Or is our Craft one of partial democracy and partial autocracy?

Centuries ago there was a goal for the GM to be a member of the royal
family. To this day it's true in the UGLE. It's not true in countries
with not such thing as patented nobility. But there is a means test
about certain levels that do require much beyond the local lodge level.

Relative to the list of rights suggeste by Bro Torrence I repeat my
early comment - "But it would be fair for me to work within my
jurisdiction(s) to implement the good parts of your principles, would
it not?" and then I wonder if such a list would be considered the good
parts by others.

[Torence]

On May 9, 7:58 pm, Chris H <***@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> I know.... so my point is how can we have a universal "Bill of Rights"
> for a "just, upright and moral" character where in some areas working
> in a liquor store is considered immoral and others where running a
> Brothel is not.
The same way that we adopt universal modes of recognition,
landmarks, purposes, or other points that celebrate our sameness
within the context of our diversity. The Grand Masters (and PGMs) have
been doing it annually for us when they conference. Rightfully, Grand
Masters are creatures of our Constitutions. In the US, the late
twentieth century ones altered that formula. Those Lodges let them.
Now that that generation has passed, I am proposing that the Lodges
take back what rightfully belongs to them so that we elevate our Local
Lodges to the station that is more true to the Original Plan of
FreeMasonry.
What the lodges need, and a Bill of Masonic Rights and Duties works
nicely for this purpose, is to go beyond mere code correction or an
overwrite of some particularly isolated and shameful decisions
regarding to the way some have chosen to interact or not interact with
one Brother or another. We can make good use of a Bill of Masonic
Rights and Duties in order to inspire us. A Lodge should be able to
choose for itself whether to follow the Ohio or West Virginia decision
should this Brother come a-calling and not have the matter decided
remotely.
What should be included in such a Bill, as I feel that one is
forthcoming no matter what we do or do not discuss here or even in our
individual Conclaves, is really the thing to decide. Recognizing, for
instance, that Local Lodges have the Right and Duty to perform the
three degrees in Masonry accomplishes a couple of things. We declare
that it is unacceptable for an appending body to do this work for us;
but we also accept that the three degrees in Masonry, being
fundamental to what a Lodge is and who we choose to be, the Local
Lodges must then come up with three degree teams from within their own
ranks to do the work.
It is sad that doing so has grown so tough for so many American
Lodges. But this particular Right accompanied with the direction that
it is a Duty will inspire us. Of course, more latitude will be
requisite if we are to achieve a condition closer to a universal
standard of all Masonic Lodges being capable of performing all three
degrees. But shouldn’t we admit via a formal resolution that it is in
our best interest that all Lodges go to work toward that end?

Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary – Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 – Crete, Illinois
PM – Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 – Lansing, Illinois

[Dave Vick, PM]

I disagree. It is not *needed*.

...And with all due respect, perhaps you talk too much.
--
Dave Vick, PM
Lansing #33, Michigan
(somewhere on tour in the USA)